Posted on 06/15/2018 6:01:58 AM PDT by Simon Green
Janique Walker knows the cost of a split second.
Her younger brother, 17-year-old Charles Macklin, was killed while trying to steal a Jeep from a Chicago fire lieutenant on the West Side last August. The lieutenant had left the Jeep running, and Macklin jumped behind the wheel.
The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest.
Macklin’s last words were, “Sorry, bro,” according to the police report. The teen died on the pavement. He did not have a gun on him.
The lieutenant had a concealed carry license. He was not charged and he was not disciplined by the department, according to spokesman Larry Langford.
“That was investigated by us, and we found no violation of any rules,” Langford said. “The police didn’t arrest, the state’s attorney found no reason to charge. There was no wrongdoing as far as the Fire Department is concerned.”
Walker, 20, has organized protests, started a Facebook page and launched a hashtag on Twitter. She says she hasn’t given up hope of getting justice for her brother.
She believes her brother was found guilty by one man with a gun. Walker said her brother should be alive to stand before a judge and take responsibility for his actions.
“When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?” she asked. “Even if (Macklin) did that, if he did steal the car. You’ve got insurance
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Yup, the good old days. Remember when banks would put out bounties on bank robbers. Wanted Dead or Alive. Preferably the former. It really kept the thieves on their toes.
If this guy wasn’t a black guy with clout (and all lieutenants in CPD or CFD are clouted). This guy would be in a jail cell. Not saying that’s what should happen but there shouldn’t be two rules for citizens and another for pols
I’ve known men who were fire fighters in Chicago. Their stories of what can happen when responding make it very understandable why a CCW would be issued. Not that it is fair that others have a most difficult time.
Grand theft—like horse theft in the old West—can lead to extreme life distress, or even death, for the person who is the victim of it.
If you're a jeweler walking to your car with a briefcase full of $10,000 in diamonds, and someone tries to wrest it from you in a strong arm robbery, you don't think you have the right to use deadly force to protect your highly valuable property? In Florida, of course you do.
Well, how much is your car worth? $5,000? $10,000? $20,000?
In the State of Florida—unless the law has changed and I'm not aware—you definitely have every right to use deadly force to prevent a the theft of such property. Any theft which can seriously affect your livelihood, your ability to work and provide for your family—basically your ability to eat and survive—can generally be prevented with deadly force. That's my understanding in the State of Florida.
When your means of transportation is stolen, that can easily mean the difference between life and death for the victim. I believe that's why the self defense and property defense law work this way in Florida...
I’ve always been taught in various CCW or tactical classes that you CAN’T employ deadly force against a thief who is moving away.
Now, if you’re standing in front of the car while he’s driving off in it, you may have other options.
It’s only my opinion but I wouldn’t kill someone for stealing simply my car
My horse yes
It wasn’t so much for property theft but because it left a man stranded often in very remote areas weeks from civilization
Not in Florida, you're not—and even if you do, no jury will convict you, and the prosecutor is supposed to use their discretion based on Florida's doctrine regarding self defense, forcible felonies, and grand theft.
This is why I knew George Zimmerman would never be convicted for defending himself against Trayvon Martin. It was open and shut self defense under Florida law, and there should have been no charges filed whatsoever—they weren't justified by the prima facie evidence, and the armed citizen, under Florida's self defense doctrine, is supposed to receive the benefit of the doubt.
Thugs, don't try this crap in the State of Florida...
Indeed who carries collision or replacement on an old car unless it’s special
I noticed recently I was carrying collision on three cars long since paid off
I had my rib stop it and shazaam we saved 3600 a year
It's a terrible thing, but I'm glad the shooter wasn't charged, because he shouldn't have been. Given that it was Illinois, I'm actually amazed. But without legal theories such as this, we'd end up with much more mayhem, violent crime, and grand theft...
Under Texas Penal Code §9.42, a person may use deadly force against another to protect land or property if:
1. He is the owner of the land;
2. He reasonably believes using the force is immediately necessary to prevent arson, burglary, or robbery; and
3. He reasonably believes that the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.
Thank you. The Texas law and doctrine is very similar to Florida, to my understanding. It's the right way to "ensure domestic tranquility", IMHO.
My vehicle is my biggest and most deadliest deadly weapon. If you steal my deadliest weapon from me, I will become triggered and fear for my life laking its protection. When you try to kill me with my deadliest weapon, I must resort to my second most deadliest deadly weapon, my sidearm.
...and kill you.
Yup a vehicle is a deadly weapon.
Dont come wandering around Kansas too much, do you.
“’When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?’”
Notice the language used. “pulling off in your car” rather than “stealing your car”.
I do try to limit my time in Kansas to the absolute minimum, I admit.
Not only that High rates of crime raise the insurance premiums of everyone who lives in that area. Yes, the zip code where you lay your head, park your car etc in no small way determines what your insurance rates will be. It’s based on statistics. She brought it up. It’s a little cold to be discussing these facts of life, she doesn’t have a clue. Sad.
I’m sorry her brother wasn’t doing the right thing, offhand comments about “that’s what insurance is for” is “cray cray” as the kids like to say. The sad thing is crime is excused, penalties reduced, society gets more of it. Car theft in California used to get 5 to 10 years at the Q. They probably don’t even bother to file a report anymore. But don’t you be driving 29 in a 25!
Well, hopefully she'll squeeze out a few welfare leeches before she croaks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.